Psychosocial interventions for stimulant use disorder.

BACKGROUND: Stimulant use disorder is a continuously growing medical and social burden without approved medications available for its treatment. Psychosocial interventions could be a valid approach to help people reduce or cease stimulant consumption. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2016. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of psychosocial interventions for stimulant use disorder in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, and two trials registers in September 2023. All searches included non-English language literature. We handsearched the references of topic-related systematic reviews and the included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any psychosocial intervention with no intervention, treatment as usual (TAU), or a different intervention in adults with stimulant use disorder. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included a total of 64 RCTs (8241 participants). Seventy-three percent of studies included participants with cocaine or crack cocaine use disorder; 3.1% included participants with amphetamine use disorder; 10.9% included participants with methamphetamine use disorder; and 12.5% included participants with any stimulant use disorder. In 18 studies, all participants were in methadone maintenance treatment. In our primary comparison of any psychosocial treatment to no intervention, we included studies which compared a psychosocial intervention plus TAU to TAU alone. In this comparison, 12 studies evaluated cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), 27 contingency management, three motivational interviewing, one study looked at psychodynamic therapy, and one study evaluated CBT plus contingency management. We also compared any psychosocial intervention to TAU. In this comparison, seven studies evaluated CBT, two contingency management, two motivational interviewing, and one evaluated a combination of CBT plus motivational interviewing. Seven studies compared contingency management reinforcement related to abstinence versus contingency management not related to abstinence. Finally, seven studies compared two different psychosocial approaches. We judged 65.6% of the studies to be at low risk of bias for random sequence generation and 19% at low risk for allocation concealment. Blinding of personnel and participants was not possible for the type of intervention, so we judged all the studies to be at high risk of performance bias for subjective outcomes but at low risk for objective outcomes. We judged 22% of the studies to be at low risk of detection bias for subjective outcomes. We judged most of the studies (69%) to be at low risk of attrition bias. When compared to no intervention, we found that psychosocial treatments: reduce the dropout rate (risk ratio (RR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 0.91; 30 studies, 4078 participants; high-certainty evidence); make little to no difference to point abstinence at the end of treatment (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.41; 12 studies, 1293 participants; high-certainty evidence); make little to no difference to point abstinence at the longest follow-up (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.62; 9 studies, 1187 participants; high-certainty evidence); probably increase continuous abstinence at the end of treatment (RR 1.89, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.97; 12 studies, 1770 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); may make little to no difference in continuous abstinence at the longest follow-up (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.46; 4 studies, 295 participants; low-certainty evidence); reduce the frequency of drug intake at the end of treatment (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.35, 95% CI -0.50 to -0.19; 10 studies, 1215 participants; high-certainty evidence); and increase the longest period of abstinence (SMD 0.54, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.68; 17 studies, 2118 participants; high-certainty evidence). When compared to TAU, we found that psychosocial treatments reduce the dropout rate (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.97; 9 studies, 735 participants; high-certainty evidence) and may make little to no difference in point abstinence at the end of treatment (RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.64 to 4.31; 1 study, 128 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether they make any difference in point abstinence at the longest follow-up (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.99; 2 studies, 124 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Compared to TAU, psychosocial treatments may make little to no difference in continuous abstinence at the end of treatment (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.53; 1 study, 128 participants; low-certainty evidence); probably make little to no difference in the frequency of drug intake at the end of treatment (SMD -1.17, 95% CI -2.81 to 0.47, 4 studies, 479 participants, moderate-certainty evidence); and may make little to no difference in the longest period of abstinence (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.54 to 0.21; 1 study, 110 participants; low-certainty evidence). None of the studies for this comparison assessed continuous abstinence at the longest follow-up. Only five studies reported harms related to psychosocial interventions; four of them stated that no adverse events occurred. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review's findings indicate that psychosocial treatments can help people with stimulant use disorder by reducing dropout rates. This conclusion is based on high-certainty evidence from comparisons of psychosocial interventions with both no treatment and TAU. This is an important finding because many people with stimulant use disorders leave treatment prematurely. Stimulant use disorders are chronic, lifelong, relapsing mental disorders, which require substantial therapeutic efforts to achieve abstinence. For those who are not yet able to achieve complete abstinence, retention in treatment may help to reduce the risks associated with stimulant use. In addition, psychosocial interventions reduce stimulant use compared to no treatment, but they may make little to no difference to stimulant use when compared to TAU. The most studied and promising psychosocial approach is contingency management. Relatively few studies explored the other approaches, so we cannot rule out the possibility that the results were imprecise due to small sample sizes.

Psychosocial and medication interventions to stop or reduce alcohol consumption during pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Despite the known harms, alcohol consumption is common in pregnancy. Rates vary between countries, and are estimated to be 10% globally, with up to 25% in Europe. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of psychosocial interventions and medications to reduce or stop alcohol consumption during pregnancy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Specialised Register (via CRSLive), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and PsycINFO, from inception to 8 January 2024. We also searched for ongoing and unpublished studies via ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). All searches included non-English language literature. We handsearched references of topic-related systematic reviews and included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that compared medications or psychosocial interventions, or both, to placebo, no intervention, usual care, or other medications or psychosocial interventions used to reduce or stop alcohol use during pregnancy. Our primary outcomes of interest were abstinence from alcohol, reduction in alcohol consumption, retention in treatment, and women with any adverse event. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight studies (1369 participants) in which pregnant women received an intervention to stop or reduce alcohol use during pregnancy. In one study, almost half of participants had a current diagnosis of alcohol use disorder (AUD); in another study, 40% of participants had a lifetime diagnosis of AUD. Six studies took place in the USA, one in Spain, and one in the Netherlands. All included studies evaluated the efficacy of psychosocial interventions; we did not find any study that evaluated the efficacy of medications for the treatment of AUD during pregnancy. Psychosocial interventions were mainly brief interventions ranging from a single session of 10 to 60 minutes to five sessions of 10 minutes each. Pregnant women received the psychosocial intervention approximately at the end of the first trimester of pregnancy, and the outcome of alcohol use was reassessed 8 to 24 weeks after the psychosocial intervention. Women in the control group received treatment as usual (TAU) or similar treatments such as comprehensive assessment of alcohol use and advice to stop drinking during pregnancy. Globally, we found that, compared to TAU, psychosocial interventions may increase the rate of continuously abstinent participants (risk ratio (RR) 1.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.14 to 1.57; I2 =0%; 3 studies; 378 women; low certainty evidence). Psychosocial interventions may have little to no effect on the number of drinks per day, but the evidence is very uncertain (mean difference -0.42, 95% CI -1.13 to 0.28; I2 = 86%; 2 studies; 157 women; very low certainty evidence). Psychosocial interventions probably have little to no effect on the number of women who completed treatment (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.02; I2 = 0%; 7 studies; 1283 women; moderate certainty evidence). None of the included studies assessed adverse events of treatments. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence due to risk of bias and imprecision of the estimates. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Brief psychosocial interventions may increase the rate of continuous abstinence among pregnant women who report alcohol use during pregnancy. Further studies should be conducted to investigate the efficacy and safety of psychosocial interventions and other treatments (e.g. medications) for women with AUD. These studies should provide detailed information on alcohol use before and during pregnancy using consistent measures such as the number of drinks per drinking day. When heterogeneous populations are recruited, more detailed information on alcohol use during pregnancy should be provided to allow future systematic reviews to be conducted. Other important information that would enhance the usefulness of these studies would be the presence of other comorbid conditions such as anxiety, mood disorders, and the use of other psychoactive substances.

Lumbar braces and other assistive devices for treatment of chronic low back pain.

OBJECTIVES: This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the benefits and harms of assistive technologies (i.e. non-rigid and rigid lumbar braces, belts, supports, and devices to assist mobility and gait) for improving pain and function (and consequently reducing disability) in adults with chronic low back pain.

Disulfiram for the treatment of cocaine dependence.

BACKGROUND: Cocaine is a psychostimulant used by approximately 0.4% of the general population worldwide. Cocaine dependence is a chronic mental disorder characterised by the inability to control cocaine use and a host of severe medical and psychosocial complications. There is current no approved pharmacological treatment for cocaine dependence. Some researchers have proposed disulfiram, a medication approved to treat alcohol use disorder. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2010. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of disulfiram for the treatment of cocaine dependence. SEARCH METHODS: We updated our searches of the following databases to August 2022: the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO. We also searched for ongoing and unpublished studies via two trials registries. We handsearched the references of topic-related systematic reviews and included studies. The searches had no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that evaluated disulfiram alone or associated with psychosocial interventions versus placebo, no intervention, other pharmacological interventions, or any psychosocial intervention for the treatment of cocaine dependence. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: Thirteen studies (1191 participants) met our inclusion criteria. Disulfiram versus placebo or no treatment Disulfiram compared to placebo may increase the number of people who are abstinent at the end of treatment (point abstinence; risk ratio (RR) 1.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05 to 2.36; 3 datasets, 142 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, compared to placebo or no pharmacological treatment, disulfiram may have little or no effect on frequency of cocaine use (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.11 standard deviations (SDs), 95% CI -0.39 to 0.17; 13 datasets, 818 participants), amount of cocaine use (SMD -0.00 SDs, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.30; 7 datasets, 376 participants), continuous abstinence (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.91; 6 datasets, 386 participants), and dropout for any reason (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.55; 14 datasets, 841 participants). The certainty of the evidence was low for all these outcomes. We are unsure about the effects of disulfiram versus placebo on dropout due to adverse events (RR 12.97, 95% CI 0.77 to 218.37; 1 study, 67 participants) and on the occurrence of adverse events (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.35 to 25.98), because the certainty of the evidence was very low for these outcomes. Disulfiram versus naltrexone Disulfiram compared with naltrexone may reduce the frequency of cocaine use (mean difference (MD) -1.90 days, 95% CI -3.37 to -0.43; 2 datasets, 123 participants; low-certainty evidence) and may have little or no effect on amount of cocaine use (SMD 0.12 SDs, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.51, 2 datasets, 123 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are unsure about the effect of disulfiram versus naltrexone on dropout for any reason (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.32, 3 datasets, 131 participants) and dropout due to adverse events (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.07 to 3.55; 1 dataset, 8 participants), because the certainty of the evidence was very low for these outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that disulfiram compared to placebo may increase point abstinence. However, disulfiram compared to placebo or no pharmacological treatment may have little or no effect on frequency of cocaine use, amount of cocaine use, continued abstinence, and dropout for any reason. We are unsure if disulfiram has any adverse effects in this population. Caution is required when transferring our results to clinical practice.

Immunomodulators and immunosuppressants for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Different therapeutic strategies are available for the treatment of people with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), including immunomodulators, immunosuppressants and biological agents. Although each one of these therapies reduces relapse frequency and slows disability accumulation compared to no treatment, their relative benefit remains unclear. This is an update of a Cochrane review published in 2015. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety, through network meta-analysis, of interferon beta-1b, interferon beta-1a, glatiramer acetate, natalizumab, mitoxantrone, fingolimod, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate, alemtuzumab, pegylated interferon beta-1a, daclizumab, laquinimod, azathioprine, immunoglobulins, cladribine, cyclophosphamide, diroximel fumarate, fludarabine, interferon beta 1-a and beta 1-b, leflunomide, methotrexate, minocycline, mycophenolate mofetil, ofatumumab, ozanimod, ponesimod, rituximab, siponimod and steroids for the treatment of people with RRMS. SEARCH METHODS: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registers were searched on 21 September 2021 together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. A top-up search was conducted on 8 August 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that studied one or more of the available immunomodulators and immunosuppressants as monotherapy in comparison to placebo or to another active agent, in adults with RRMS. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently selected studies and extracted data. We considered both direct and indirect evidence and performed data synthesis by pairwise and network meta-analysis. Certainty of the evidence was assessed by the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 50 studies involving 36,541 participants (68.6% female and 31.4% male). Median treatment duration was 24 months, and 25 (50%) studies were placebo-controlled. Considering the risk of bias, the most frequent concern was related to the role of the sponsor in the authorship of the study report or in data management and analysis, for which we judged 68% of the studies were at high risk of other bias. The other frequent concerns were performance bias (34% judged as having high risk) and attrition bias (32% judged as having high risk). Placebo was used as the common comparator for network analysis. Relapses over 12 months: data were provided in 18 studies (9310 participants). Natalizumab results in a large reduction of people with relapses at 12 months (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.63; high-certainty evidence). Fingolimod (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.57; moderate-certainty evidence), daclizumab (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.73; moderate-certainty evidence), and immunoglobulins (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.79; moderate-certainty evidence) probably result in a large reduction of people with relapses at 12 months. Relapses over 24 months: data were reported in 28 studies (19,869 participants). Cladribine (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.64; high-certainty evidence), alemtuzumab (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.68; high-certainty evidence) and natalizumab (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.65; high-certainty evidence) result in a large decrease of people with relapses at 24 months. Fingolimod (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.60; moderate-certainty evidence), dimethyl fumarate (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.70; moderate-certainty evidence), and ponesimod (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.70; moderate-certainty evidence) probably result in a large decrease of people with relapses at 24 months. Glatiramer acetate (RR 0.84, 95%, CI 0.76 to 0.93; moderate-certainty evidence) and interferon beta-1a (Avonex, Rebif) (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.91; moderate-certainty evidence) probably moderately decrease people with relapses at 24 months. Relapses over 36 months findings were available from five studies (3087 participants). None of the treatments assessed showed moderate- or high-certainty evidence compared to placebo. Disability worsening over 24 months was assessed in 31 studies (24,303 participants). Natalizumab probably results in a large reduction of disability worsening (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.75; moderate-certainty evidence) at 24 months. Disability worsening over 36 months was assessed in three studies (2684 participants) but none of the studies used placebo as the comparator. Treatment discontinuation due to adverse events data were available from 43 studies (35,410 participants). Alemtuzumab probably results in a slight reduction of treatment discontinuation due to adverse events (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.79; moderate-certainty evidence). Daclizumab (OR 2.55, 95% CI 1.40 to 4.63; moderate-certainty evidence), fingolimod (OR 1.84, 95% CI 1.31 to 2.57; moderate-certainty evidence), teriflunomide (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.79; moderate-certainty evidence), interferon beta-1a (OR 1.48, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.20; moderate-certainty evidence), laquinimod (OR 1.49, 95 % CI 1.00 to 2.15; moderate-certainty evidence), natalizumab (OR 1.57, 95% CI 0.81 to 3.05), and glatiramer acetate (OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.14; moderate-certainty evidence) probably result in a slight increase in the number of people who discontinue treatment due to adverse events. Serious adverse events (SAEs) were reported in 35 studies (33,998 participants). There was probably a trivial reduction in SAEs amongst people with RRMS treated with interferon beta-1b as compared to placebo (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.54; moderate-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are highly confident that, compared to placebo, two-year treatment with natalizumab, cladribine, or alemtuzumab decreases relapses more than with other DMTs. We are moderately confident that a two-year treatment with natalizumab may slow disability progression. Compared to those on placebo, people with RRMS treated with most of the assessed DMTs showed a higher frequency of treatment discontinuation due to AEs: we are moderately confident that this could happen with fingolimod, teriflunomide, interferon beta-1a, laquinimod, natalizumab and daclizumab, while our certainty with other DMTs is lower. We are also moderately certain that treatment with alemtuzumab is associated with fewer discontinuations due to adverse events than placebo, and moderately certain that interferon beta-1b probably results in a slight reduction in people who experience serious adverse events, but our certainty with regard to other DMTs is lower. Insufficient evidence is available to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DMTs in a longer term than two years, and this is a relevant issue for a chronic condition like MS that develops over decades. More than half of the included studies were sponsored by pharmaceutical companies and this may have influenced their results. Further studies should focus on direct comparison between active agents, with follow-up of at least three years, and assess other patient-relevant outcomes, such as quality of life and cognitive status, with particular focus on the impact of sex/gender on treatment effects.

Immunomodulators and immunosuppressants for progressive multiple sclerosis: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: In recent years a broader range of immunomodulatory and immunosuppressive treatment options have emerged for people with progressive forms of multiple sclerosis (PMS). While consensus supports these options as reducing relapses, their relative benefit and safety profiles remain unclear due to a lack of direct comparison trials. OBJECTIVES: To compare through network meta-analysis the efficacy and safety of alemtuzumab, azathioprine, cladribine, cyclophosphamide, daclizumab, dimethylfumarate, diroximel fumarate, fingolimod, fludarabine, glatiramer acetate, immunoglobulins, interferon beta 1-a and beta 1-b, interferon beta-1b (Betaferon), interferon beta-1a (Avonex, Rebif), laquinimod, leflunomide, methotrexate, minocycline, mitoxantrone, mycophenolate mofetil, natalizumab, ocrelizumab, ofatumumab, ozanimod, pegylated interferon beta-1a, ponesimod, rituximab, siponimod, corticosteroids, and teriflunomide for PMS. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase up to August 2022, as well as ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that studied one or more treatments as monotherapy, compared to placebo or to another active agent, for use in adults with PMS. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies and extracted data. We performed data synthesis by pair-wise and network meta-analysis. We assessed the certainty of the body of evidence according to GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 23 studies involving a total of 10,167 participants. The most frequent (39% of studies) reason for a rating of high risk of bias was sponsor role in study authorship and data management and analysis. Other concerns were performance, attrition, and selective reporting bias, with 8.7% of studies at high risk of bias for all three of these domains. The common comparator for network analysis was placebo. Relapses over 12 months: assessed in one study (318 participants). None of the treatments assessed showed moderate or high certainty evidence compared to placebo. Relapses over 24 months: assessed in six studies (1622 participants). The number of people with clinical relapses is probably trivially reduced with rituximab (risk ratio (RR) 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19 to 1.95; moderate certainty evidence). None of the remaining treatments assessed showed moderate or high certainty evidence compared to placebo. Relapses over 36 months: assessed in four studies (2095 participants). The number of people with clinical relapses is probably trivially reduced with interferon beta-1b (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.93; moderate certainty evidence). None of the remaining treatments assessed showed moderate or high certainty evidence compared to placebo. Disability worsening over 24 months: assessed in 11 studies (5284 participants). None of the treatments assessed showed moderate or high certainty evidence compared to placebo. Disability worsening over 36 months: assessed in five studies (2827 participants). None of the treatments assessed showed moderate or high certainty evidence compared to placebo. Serious adverse events: assessed in 15 studies (8019 participants). None of the treatments assessed showed moderate or high certainty evidence compared to placebo. Discontinuation due to adverse events: assessed in 21 studies (9981 participants). The number of people who discontinued treatment due to adverse events is trivially increased with interferon beta-1a (odds ratio (OR) 2.93, 95% CI 1.64 to 5.26; high certainty evidence). The number of people who discontinued treatment due to adverse events is probably trivially increased with rituximab (OR 4.00, 95% CI 0.84 to 19.12; moderate certainty evidence); interferon beta-1b (OR 2.98, 95% CI 1.92 to 4.61; moderate certainty evidence); immunoglobulins (OR 1.95, 95% CI 0.99 to 3.84; moderate certainty evidence); glatiramer acetate (OR 3.98, 95% CI 1.48 to 10.72; moderate certainty evidence); natalizumab (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.90; moderate certainty evidence); siponimod (OR 1.53, 95% CI 0.98 to 2.38; moderate certainty evidence); fingolimod (OR 2.29, 95% CI 1.46 to 3.60; moderate certainty evidence), and ocrelizumab (OR 1.24, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.86; moderate certainty evidence). None of the remaining treatments assessed showed moderate or high certainty evidence compared to placebo. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The number of people with PMS with relapses is probably slightly reduced with rituximab at two years, and interferon beta-1b at three years, compared to placebo. Both drugs are also probably associated with a slightly higher proportion of withdrawals due to adverse events, as are immunoglobulins, glatiramer acetate, natalizumab, fingolimod, siponimod, and ocrelizumab; we have high confidence that this is the case with interferon beta-1a. We found only low or very low certainty evidence relating to disability progression for the included disease-modifying treatments compared to placebo, largely due to imprecision. We are also uncertain about the effect of interventions on serious adverse events, also because of imprecision. These findings are due in part to the short follow-up of the included RCTs, which lacked detection of less common severe adverse events. Moreover, the funding source of many included studies may have introduced bias into the results. Future research on PMS should include head-to-head rather than placebo-controlled trials, with a longer follow-up of at least three years. Given the relative rarity of PMS, controlled, non-randomised studies on large samples may usefully integrate data from pivotal RCTs. Outcomes valuable and meaningful to people with PMS should be consistently adopted and measured to permit the evaluation of relative effectiveness among treatments.

Therapeutic exercises for idiopathic scoliosis in adolescents.

BACKGROUND: Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) is a pathology that changes the three-dimensional shape of the spine and trunk. While AIS can progress during growth and cause cosmetic issues, it is usually asymptomatic. However, a final spinal curvature above the critical threshold of 30° increases the risk of health problems and curve progression in adulthood. The use of therapeutic exercises (TEs) to reduce the progression of AIS and delay or avoid other, more invasive treatments is still controversial. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of TE, including generic therapeutic exercises (GTE) and physiotherapeutic scoliosis-specific exercises (PSSE) in treating AIS, compared to no treatment, other non-surgical treatments, or between treatments. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, four other databases, and two clinical trials registers to 17 November 2022. We also screened reference lists of articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing TE with no treatment, other non-surgical treatments (braces, electrical stimulation, manual therapy), and different types of exercises. In the previous version of the review, we also included observational studies. We did not include observational studies in this update since we found sufficient RCTs to address our study aims. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodology. Our major outcomes were progression of scoliosis (measured by Cobb angle, trunk rotation, progression, bracing, surgery), cosmetic issues (measured by surface measurements and perception), and quality of life (QoL). Our minor outcomes were back pain, mental health, and adverse effects. MAIN RESULTS: We included 13 RCTs (583 participants). The percentage of females ranged from 50% to 100%; mean age ranged from 12 to 15 years. Studies included participants with Cobb angles from low to severe. We judged 61% of the studies at low risk for random sequence generation and 46% at low risk for allocation concealment. None of the studies could blind participants and personnel. We judged the subjective outcomes at high risk of performance and detection bias, and the objective outcomes at high risk of detection bias in six studies and at low risk of bias in the other six studies. One study did not assess any objective outcomes. Comparing TE versus no treatment, we are very uncertain whether TE reduces the Cobb angle (mean difference (MD) -3.6°, 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.6 to -1.7; 2 studies, 52 participants). Low-certainty evidence indicates PSSE makes little or no difference in the angle of trunk rotation (ATR) (MD -0.8°, 95% CI -3.8 to 2.1; 1 study, 45 participants), may reduce the waist asymmetry slightly (MD -0.5 cm, 95% CI -0.8 to -0.3; 1 study, 45 participants), and may result in little to no difference in the score of cosmetic issues measured by the Spinal Appearance Questionnaire (SAQ) General (MD 0.7 points, 95% CI -0.1 to 1.4; 1 study, 16 participants). PSSE may result in little to no difference in self-image measured by the Scoliosis Research Society - 22 Patient Questionnaire (SRS-22) (MD 0.3 points, 95% CI -0.3 to 0.9; 1 study, 16 participants) and improve QoL slightly measured by SRS-22 Total score (MD 0.3 points, 95% CI 0.1 to 0.4; 2 studies, 61 participants). Only Cobb angle results were clinically meaningful. Comparing PSSE plus bracing versus bracing, low-certainty evidence indicates PSSE plus bracing may reduce Cobb angle (-2.2°, 95% CI -3.8 to -0.7; 2 studies, 84 participants). Comparing GTE plus other non-surgical interventions versus other non-surgical interventions, low-certainty evidence indicates GTE plus other non-surgical interventions may reduce Cobb angle (MD -8.0°, 95% CI -11.5 to -4.5; 1 study, 80 participants). We are uncertain whether PSSE plus other non-surgical interventions versus other non-surgical interventions reduces Cobb angle (MD -7.8°, 95% CI -12.5 to -3.1; 1 study, 18 participants) and ATR (MD -8.0°, 95% CI -12.7 to -3.3; 1 study, 18 participants). PSSE plus bracing versus bracing alone may make little to no difference in subjective measurement of cosmetic issues as measured by SAQ General (-0.2 points, 95% CI -0.9 to 0.5; 1 study, 34 participants), self-image score as measured by SRS-22 Self-Image (MD 0.1 points, 95% CI -0.3 to 0.5; 1 study, 34 participants), and QoL measured by SRS-22 Total score (MD 0.2 points, 95% CI -0.1 to 0.5; 1 study, 34 participants). None of these results were clinically meaningful. Comparing TE versus bracing, we are very uncertain whether PSSE allows progression of Cobb angle (MD 2.7°, 95% CI 0.3 to 5.0; 1 study, 60 participants), changes self-image measured by SRS-22 Self-Image (MD 0.1 points, 95% CI -1.0 to 1.1; 1 study, 60 participants), and QoL measured by SRS-22 Total score (MD 3.2 points, 95% CI 2.1 to 4.2; 1 study, 60 participants). None of these results were clinically meaningful. Comparing PSSE with GTE, we are uncertain whether PSSE makes little or no difference in Cobb angle (MD -3.0°, 95% CI -8.2 to 2.1; 4 studies, 192 participants; very low-certainty evidence). PSSE probably reduces ATR (clinically meaningful) (MD -3.0°, 95% CI -3.4 to -2.5; 2 studies, 138 participants). We are uncertain about the effect of PSSE on QoL measured by SRS-22 Total score (MD 0.26 points, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.62; 3 studies, 168 participants) and on self-image measured by SRS-22 Self-Image and Walter Reed Visual Assessment Scale (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.77, 95% CI -0.61 to 2.14; 3 studies, 168 participants). Further, low-certainty evidence indicates that 38/100 people receiving GTE may progress more than 5° Cobb versus 7/100 receiving PSSE (risk ratio (RR) 0.19, 95% CI -0.67 to 0.52; 1 study, 110 participants). None of the included studies assessed adverse effects. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence on the efficacy of TE is currently sparse due to heterogeneity, small sample size, and many different comparisons. We found only one study following participants to the end of growth showing the efficacy of PSSE over TE. This result was weakened by adding studies with short-term results and unclear preparation of treating physiotherapists. More RCTs are needed to strengthen the current evidence and study other highly clinically relevant outcomes such as QoL, psychological and cosmetic issues, and back pain.

Baclofen for alcohol use disorder.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol use disorder (AUD) is one of the most widespread psychiatric disorders leading to detrimental consequences to people with this disorder and others. Worldwide, the prevalence of heavy episodic drinking (30-day prevalence of at least one occasion of 60 g of pure alcohol intake among current drinkers) is estimated at 20% and the prevalence of AUD at 5% of the adult general population, with highest prevalence in Europe and North America. Therapeutic approaches, including pharmacotherapy, play an important role in treating people with AUD. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2018. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of baclofen on achieving and maintaining abstinence or reducing alcohol consumption in people with AUD compared to placebo, no treatment or any other pharmacological relapse prevention treatment. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search was 22 November 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least four weeks' treatment duration and 12 weeks' overall study duration comparing baclofen for AUD treatment with placebo, no treatment or other treatments. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. relapse, 2. frequency of use, 3. amount of use, 4. adverse events, 5. dropouts from treatment and 6. dropouts from treatment due to adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were 7. craving, 8. anxiety, 9. depression and 10. frequency of most relevant adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: We included 17 RCTs (1818 participants) with a diagnosis of alcohol dependence according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition or International Classification of Diseases 10th edition criteria. Mean age was 46.5 years and 70% were men. Ten studies compared baclofen to placebo or another medication; seven compared two baclofen doses to placebo or another medication. Globally, 15 studies compared baclofen to placebo, two baclofen to acamprosate and two baclofen to naltrexone. In 16 studies, participants received psychosocial treatments. We judged most studies at low risk of selection, performance, detection (subjective outcome), attrition and reporting bias. Ten studies detoxified participants before treatment; in seven studies, participants were still drinking at the beginning of treatment. Treatment duration was 12 weeks for 15 RCTs and longer in two studies. Baclofen daily dose was 30 mg to 300 mg: 10 RCTs used low doses (30 mg or less); eight RCTs medium doses (above 30 and 100 mg or less) and four RCTs high doses (above 100 mg). Compared to placebo, moderate-certainty evidence found that baclofen probably decreases the risk to relapse (risk ratio (RR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 0.99; 12 studies, 1057 participants). This result was confirmed among detoxified participants but not among other subgroups of participants. High-certainty evidence found that baclofen increases the percentage of days abstinent (mean difference (MD) 9.07, 95% CI 3.30 to 14.85; 16 studies, 1273 participants). This result was confirmed among all subgroups of participants except non-detoxified or those who received medium doses. There was no difference between baclofen and placebo in the other primary outcomes: heavy drinking days (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.18, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.11; 13 studies, 840 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); number of drinks per drinking days (MD -0.45, 95% CI -1.20 to 0.30; 9 studies, 392 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); number of participants with at least one adverse event (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.11; 10 studies, 738 participants; high-certainty evidence); dropouts (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.03; 17 studies, 1563 participants; high-certainty evidence); dropouts due to adverse events (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.89 to 2.18; 16 studies, 1499 participants; high-certainty evidence). These results were confirmed by subgroup analyses except than for the dropouts that resulted lower among participants who received high doses of baclofen and studies longer than 12 weeks. Compared to placebo, there was no difference in craving (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.04; 17 studies, 1275 participants), anxiety (MD -0.01, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.11; 15 studies, 1123 participants) and depression (SMD 0.07, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.27; 11 studies, 1029 participants). Concerning the specific adverse events, baclofen increases fatigue, dizziness, somnolence/sedation, dry mouth, paraesthesia and muscle spasms/rigidity. There was no difference in the other adverse events. Compared to acamprosate, one study (60 participants) found no differences in any outcomes but the evidence was very uncertain: relapse (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.20; very low-certainty evidence); number of participants with at least one adverse event (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.69; very low-certainty evidence); dropouts (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.46; very low-certainty evidence); dropouts due to adverse events (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.87; very low-certainty evidence) and craving (MD 5.80, 95% CI -11.84 to 23.44); and all the adverse events evaluated. Compared to naltrexone, baclofen may increase the risk of relapse (RR 2.50, 95% CI 1.12 to 5.56; 1 study, 60 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and decrease the number of participants with at least one adverse event (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.80; 2 studies, 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence) but the evidence is very uncertain. One study (60 participants) found no difference between baclofen and naltrexone in the dropouts at the end of treatment (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.32 to 3.10; very low-certainty evidence), craving (MD 2.08, 95% CI -3.71 to 7.87), and all the adverse events evaluated. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Baclofen likely reduces the risk of relapse to any drinking and increases the percentage of abstinent days, mainly among detoxified participants. It does not increase the number of participants with at least one adverse event, those who dropout for any reason or due to adverse events. It probably does not reduce number of heavy drinking days and the number of drinks per drinking days. Current evidence suggests that baclofen may help people with AUD in maintaining abstinence. The results of comparisons of baclofen with acamprosate and naltrexone were mainly based on only one study.

Cannabis and cannabinoids for symptomatic treatment for people with multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: Spasticity and chronic neuropathic pain are common and serious symptoms in people with multiple sclerosis (MS). These symptoms increase with disease progression and lead to worsening disability, impaired activities of daily living and quality of life. Anti-spasticity medications and analgesics are of limited benefit or poorly tolerated. Cannabinoids may reduce spasticity and pain in people with MS. Demand for symptomatic treatment with cannabinoids is high. A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding benefits and harms of these drugs is required. OBJECTIVES: To assess benefit and harms of cannabinoids, including synthetic, or herbal and plant-derived cannabinoids, for reducing symptoms for adults with MS. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases from inception to December 2021: MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, the Cochrane Library), CINAHL (EBSCO host), LILACS, the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), the World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the US National Institutes of Health clinical trial register, the European Union Clinical Trials Register, the International Association for Cannabinoid Medicines databank. We hand searched citation lists of included studies and relevant reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised parallel or cross-over trials (RCTs) evaluating any cannabinoid (including herbal Cannabis, Cannabis flowers, plant-based cannabinoids, or synthetic cannabinoids) irrespective of dose, route, frequency, or duration of use for adults with MS. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane Risk of bias 2 tool for parallel RCTs and crossover trials. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: reduction of 30% in the spasticity Numeric Rating Scale, pain relief of 50% or greater in the Numeric Rating Scale-Pain Intensity, much or very much improvement in the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL), withdrawals due to adverse events (AEs) (tolerability), serious adverse events (SAEs), nervous system disorders, psychiatric disorders, physical dependence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 25 RCTs with 3763 participants of whom 2290 received cannabinoids. Age ranged from 18 to 60 years, and between 50% and 88% participants across the studies were female.  The included studies were 3 to 48 weeks long and compared nabiximols, an oromucosal spray with a plant derived equal (1:1) combination of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) (13 studies), synthetic cannabinoids mimicking THC (7 studies), an oral THC extract of Cannabis sativa (2 studies), inhaled herbal Cannabis (1 study) against placebo. One study compared dronabinol, THC extract of Cannabis sativa and placebo, one compared inhaled herbal Cannabis, dronabinol and placebo. We identified eight ongoing studies. Critical outcomes • Spasticity: nabiximols probably increases the number of people who report an important reduction of perceived severity of spasticity compared with placebo (odds ratio (OR) 2.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.56 to 4.04; 5 RCTs, 1143 participants; I2 = 67%; moderate-certainty evidence). The absolute effect was 216 more people (95% CI 99 more to 332 more) per 1000 reporting benefit with cannabinoids than with placebo. • Chronic neuropathic pain: we found only one small trial that measured the number of participants reporting substantial pain relief with a synthetic cannabinoid compared with placebo (OR 4.23, 95% CI 1.11 to 16.17; 1 study, 48 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether cannabinoids reduce chronic neuropathic pain intensity. • Treatment discontinuation due to AEs: cannabinoids may increase slightly the number of participants who discontinue treatment compared with placebo (OR 2.41, 95% CI 1.51 to 3.84; 21 studies, 3110 participants; I² = 17%; low-certainty evidence); the absolute effect is 39 more people (95% CI 15 more to 76 more) per 1000 people. Important outcomes • PGIC: cannabinoids probably increase the number of people who report 'very much' or 'much' improvement in health status compared with placebo (OR 1.80, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.36; 8 studies, 1215 participants; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). The absolute effect is 113 more people (95% CI 57 more to 175 more) per 1000 people reporting improvement. • HRQoL: cannabinoids may have little to no effect on HRQoL (SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.02; 8 studies, 1942 participants; I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence); • SAEs: cannabinoids may result in little to no difference in the number of participants who have SAEs compared with placebo (OR 1.38, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.99; 20 studies, 3124 participants; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence); • AEs of the nervous system: cannabinoids may increase nervous system disorders compared with placebo (OR 2.61, 95% CI 1.53 to 4.44; 7 studies, 1154 participants; I² = 63%; low-certainty evidence); • Psychiatric disorders: cannabinoids may increase psychiatric disorders compared with placebo (OR 1.94, 95% CI 1.31 to 2.88; 6 studies, 1122 participants; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence); • Drug tolerance: the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of cannabinoids on drug tolerance (OR 3.07, 95% CI 0.12 to 75.95; 2 studies, 458 participants; very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared with placebo, nabiximols probably reduces the severity of spasticity in the short-term in people with MS. We are uncertain about the effect on chronic neurological pain and health-related quality of life. Cannabinoids may increase slightly treatment discontinuation due to AEs, nervous system and psychiatric disorders compared with placebo. We are uncertain about the effect on drug tolerance. The overall certainty of evidence is limited by short-term duration of the included studies.

Efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines.

BACKGROUND: Different forms of vaccines have been developed to prevent the SARS-CoV-2 virus and subsequent COVID-19 disease. Several are in widespread use globally.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines (as a full primary vaccination series or a booster dose) against SARS-CoV-2. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 L·OVE platform (last search date 5 November 2021). We also searched the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, regulatory agency websites, and Retraction Watch. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing COVID-19 vaccines to placebo, no vaccine, other active vaccines, or other vaccine schedules. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for all except immunogenicity outcomes.  We synthesized data for each vaccine separately and presented summary effect estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).  MAIN RESULTS: We included and analyzed 41 RCTs assessing 12 different vaccines, including homologous and heterologous vaccine schedules and the effect of booster doses. Thirty-two RCTs were multicentre and five were multinational. The sample sizes of RCTs were 60 to 44,325 participants. Participants were aged: 18 years or older in 36 RCTs; 12 years or older in one RCT; 12 to 17 years in two RCTs; and three to 17 years in two RCTs. Twenty-nine RCTs provided results for individuals aged over 60 years, and three RCTs included immunocompromized patients. No trials included pregnant women. Sixteen RCTs had two-month follow-up or less, 20 RCTs had two to six months, and five RCTs had greater than six to 12 months or less. Eighteen reports were based on preplanned interim analyses. Overall risk of bias was low for all outcomes in eight RCTs, while 33 had concerns for at least one outcome. We identified 343 registered RCTs with results not yet available.  This abstract reports results for the critical outcomes of confirmed symptomatic COVID-19, severe and critical COVID-19, and serious adverse events only for the 10 WHO-approved vaccines. For remaining outcomes and vaccines, see main text. The evidence for mortality was generally sparse and of low or very low certainty for all WHO-approved vaccines, except AD26.COV2.S (Janssen), which probably reduces the risk of all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.25, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.67; 1 RCT, 43,783 participants; high-certainty evidence). Confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 High-certainty evidence found that BNT162b2 (BioNtech/Fosun Pharma/Pfizer), mRNA-1273 (ModernaTx), ChAdOx1 (Oxford/AstraZeneca), Ad26.COV2.S, BBIBP-CorV (Sinopharm-Beijing), and BBV152 (Bharat Biotect) reduce the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 compared to placebo (vaccine efficacy (VE): BNT162b2: 97.84%, 95% CI 44.25% to 99.92%; 2 RCTs, 44,077 participants; mRNA-1273: 93.20%, 95% CI 91.06% to 94.83%; 2 RCTs, 31,632 participants; ChAdOx1: 70.23%, 95% CI 62.10% to 76.62%; 2 RCTs, 43,390 participants; Ad26.COV2.S: 66.90%, 95% CI 59.10% to 73.40%; 1 RCT, 39,058 participants; BBIBP-CorV: 78.10%, 95% CI 64.80% to 86.30%; 1 RCT, 25,463 participants; BBV152: 77.80%, 95% CI 65.20% to 86.40%; 1 RCT, 16,973 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence found that NVX-CoV2373 (Novavax) probably reduces the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 compared to placebo (VE 82.91%, 95% CI 50.49% to 94.10%; 3 RCTs, 42,175 participants). There is low-certainty evidence for CoronaVac (Sinovac) for this outcome (VE 69.81%, 95% CI 12.27% to 89.61%; 2 RCTs, 19,852 participants). Severe or critical COVID-19 High-certainty evidence found that BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, Ad26.COV2.S, and BBV152 result in a large reduction in incidence of severe or critical disease due to COVID-19 compared to placebo (VE: BNT162b2: 95.70%, 95% CI 73.90% to 99.90%; 1 RCT, 46,077 participants; mRNA-1273: 98.20%, 95% CI 92.80% to 99.60%; 1 RCT, 28,451 participants; AD26.COV2.S: 76.30%, 95% CI 57.90% to 87.50%; 1 RCT, 39,058 participants; BBV152: 93.40%, 95% CI 57.10% to 99.80%; 1 RCT, 16,976 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence found that NVX-CoV2373 probably reduces the incidence of severe or critical COVID-19 (VE 100.00%, 95% CI 86.99% to 100.00%; 1 RCT, 25,452 participants). Two trials reported high efficacy of CoronaVac for severe or critical disease with wide CIs, but these results could not be pooled. Serious adverse events (SAEs) mRNA-1273, ChAdOx1 (Oxford-AstraZeneca)/SII-ChAdOx1 (Serum Institute of India), Ad26.COV2.S, and BBV152 probably result in little or no difference in SAEs compared to placebo (RR: mRNA-1273: 0.92, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.08; 2 RCTs, 34,072 participants; ChAdOx1/SII-ChAdOx1: 0.88, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.07; 7 RCTs, 58,182 participants; Ad26.COV2.S: 0.92, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.22; 1 RCT, 43,783 participants); BBV152: 0.65, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.97; 1 RCT, 25,928 participants). In each of these, the likely absolute difference in effects was fewer than 5/1000 participants. Evidence for SAEs is uncertain for BNT162b2, CoronaVac, BBIBP-CorV, and NVX-CoV2373 compared to placebo (RR: BNT162b2: 1.30, 95% CI 0.55 to 3.07; 2 RCTs, 46,107 participants; CoronaVac: 0.97, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.51; 4 RCTs, 23,139 participants; BBIBP-CorV: 0.76, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.06; 1 RCT, 26,924 participants; NVX-CoV2373: 0.92, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.14; 4 RCTs, 38,802 participants). For the evaluation of heterologous schedules, booster doses, and efficacy against variants of concern, see main text of review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared to placebo, most vaccines reduce, or likely reduce, the proportion of participants with confirmed symptomatic COVID-19, and for some, there is high-certainty evidence that they reduce severe or critical disease. There is probably little or no difference between most vaccines and placebo for serious adverse events. Over 300 registered RCTs are evaluating the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, and this review is updated regularly on the COVID-NMA platform (covid-nma.com). Implications for practice Due to the trial exclusions, these results cannot be generalized to pregnant women, individuals with a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection, or immunocompromized people. Most trials had a short follow-up and were conducted before the emergence of variants of concern. Implications for research Future research should evaluate the long-term effect of vaccines, compare different vaccines and vaccine schedules, assess vaccine efficacy and safety in specific populations, and include outcomes such as preventing long COVID-19. Ongoing evaluation of vaccine efficacy and effectiveness against emerging variants of concern is also vital.

School closures and mental health, wellbeing and health behaviours among children and adolescents during the second COVID-19 wave: a systematic review of the literature.

OBJECTIVES: to evaluate the impact of school closures, as a measure to contain the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection, on the psychological well-being of students of all levels starting from the 2020-2021 school year. DESIGN: a systematic literature review was conducted according to the PRISMA 2020 Guidelines. The literature search was conducted on 4 different databases: MedLine, Embase, PsycINFO, and L.OVE Platform. Quantitative observational studies published until 10.01.2022 were included. Studies conducted during the first pandemic wave, i.e., during the 2019-2020 school year and/or during the mandatory lockdown or confinement period, were excluded. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed with validated scales. Study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment were carried out independently by two authors. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: children, adolescents, and young people attending all levels of education (including universities) and, for reasons related to COVID-19, having a suspension of "in presence" school or attending classes remotely. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: a. outcomes directly related to mental health: suicides, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations for psychiatric problems; anxiety and depression, emotional difficulties, feelings of loneliness and isolation; b. well-being outcomes: sleep quality, perceived well-being (by child/adolescent/youth or referred by parents); c. health-related behaviours: tobacco smoking, alcohol, drug use. Outcomes related to school/academic performance, physical health, and those related to parents were not considered. RESULTS: after having removed duplicate articles, 2,830 records were retrieved with the bibliographic search. Twelve studies (2 uncontrolled before-after studies and 10 cross sectional surveys) were included, involving a total of 27,787 participants. Three studies involved university students, 2 involved high school students, and the remaining involved a mixed population of students attending primary and middle schools. The studies were conducted between September 2020 and April 2021. The methodological quality was rated as high in five studies and intermediate in the remaining studies. Due to the high heterogeneity of outcome measures and statistical analyses performed among the included studies, it was not possible to conduct a meta-analysis of the results of the considered publications. Nevertheless, the present review showed a clear signal of increase in mental health problems in relation to school closure or virtual instruction. In particular, results suggest evidence of association between school closure and risk of suicidal attempts or thoughts, mental health symptoms such as anxiety, depression, emotional disorders, psychological stress. Sleeping problems, drug and alcohol addiction were poorly studied. CONCLUSIONS: despite the limitations of the included studies and possible residual confounding and contamination due to restrictive measures and social isolation implemented during the pandemic, the available evidence confirms the negative impact on students' mental health associated with school closures and distance learning. Given the availability of vaccination also for young children, a long period of school closure should be avoided also in the case of the emergence of new pandemic waves.

Impact of antipsychotics in children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The net health benefit of using antipsychotics in children and adolescents with ASD is unclear. This review was performed to provide the evidence necessary to inform the Italian national guidelines for the management of ASD. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing antipsychotics versus placebo for the treatment of ASD in children and adolescents. For efficacy, acceptability and safety we considered outcomes evaluated by the guideline panel critical and important for decision-making. Continuous outcomes were analyzed by using standardized mean difference (SMD), and dichotomous outcomes by calculating the risk ratio (RR), with their 95% confidence interval (95% CI). Data were analyzed using a random effects model. We used the Cochrane tool to assess risk of bias of included studies. Certainty in the evidence of effects was assessed according to the GRADE approach. RESULTS: We included 21 RCTs with 1,309 participants, comparing antipsychotics to placebo. Antipsychotics were found effective on "restricted and repetitive interests and behaviors" (SMD - 0.21, 95% CI - 0.35 to - 0.07, moderate certainty), "hyperactivity, inattention, oppositional, disruptive behavior" (SMD - 0.67, 95% CI - 0.92 to - 0.42, moderate certainty), "social communication, social interaction" (SMD - 0.38, 95% CI - 0.59 to - 0.16, moderate certainty), "emotional dysregulation/irritability" (SMD - 0.71, 95% CI - 0.98 to - 0.43, low certainty), "global functioning, global improvement" (SMD - 0.64, 95% CI - 0.96 to - 0.33, low certainty), "obsessions, compulsions" (SMD - 0.30, 95% CI - 0.55 to - 0.06, moderate certainty). Antipsychotics were not effective on "self-harm" (SMD - 0.14, 95% CI - 0.58 to 0.30, very low certainty), "anxiety" (SMD - 0.38, 95% CI - 0.82 to 0.07, very low certainty). Antipsychotics were more acceptable in terms of dropout due to any cause (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.78, moderate certainty), but were less safe in terms of patients experiencing adverse events (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.32, moderate certainty), and serious adverse events (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.43, low certainty). CONCLUSIONS: Our systematic review and meta-analysis found antipsychotics for children and adolescents with ASD more efficacious than placebo in reducing stereotypies, hyperactivity, irritability and obsessions, compulsions, and in increasing social communication and global functioning. Antipsychotics were also found to be more acceptable, but less safe than placebo.

Topical antibiotic prophylaxis to reduce respiratory tract infections and mortality in adults receiving mechanical ventilation.

BACKGROUND: Patients treated with mechanical ventilation in intensive care units (ICUs) have a high risk of developing respiratory tract infections (RTIs). Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) has been estimated to affect 5% to 40% of patients treated with mechanical ventilation for at least 48 hours. The attributable mortality rate of VAP has been estimated at about 9%. Selective digestive decontamination (SDD), which consists of the topical application of non-absorbable antimicrobial agents to the oropharynx and gastroenteric tract during the whole period of mechanical ventilation, is often used to reduce the risk of VAP. A related treatment is selective oropharyngeal decontamination (SOD), in which topical antibiotics are applied to the oropharynx only. This is an update of a review first published in 1997 and updated in 2002, 2004, and 2009. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of topical antibiotic regimens (SDD and SOD), given alone or in combination with systemic antibiotics, to prevent mortality and respiratory infections in patients receiving mechanical ventilation for at least 48 hours in ICUs. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections (ARI) Group's Specialised Register, PubMed, and Embase on 5 February 2020. We also searched the WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov for ongoing and unpublished studies on 5 February 2020. All searches included non-English language literature. We handsearched references of topic-related systematic reviews and the included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs assessing the efficacy and safety of topical prophylactic antibiotic regimens in adults receiving intensive care and mechanical ventilation. The included studies compared topical plus systemic antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment; topical antibiotics versus no treatment; and topical plus systemic antibiotics versus systemic antibiotics. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included a total of 41 trials involving 11,004 participants (five new studies were added in this update). The minimum duration of mechanical ventilation ranged from 2 (19 studies) to 6 days (one study). Thirteen studies reported the mean length of ICU stay, ranging from 11 to 33 days. The percentage of immunocompromised patients ranged from 0% (10 studies) to 22% (1 study). The reporting quality of the majority of included studies was very poor, so we judged more than 40% of the studies as at unclear risk of selection bias. We judged all studies to be at low risk of performance bias, though 47.6% were open-label, because hospitals usually have standardised infection control programmes, and possible subjective decisions on who should be tested for the presence or absence of RTIs are unlikely in an ICU setting. Regarding detection bias, we judged all included studies as at low risk for the outcome mortality. For the outcome RTIs, we judged all double-blind studies as at low risk of detection bias. We judged five open-label studies as at high risk of detection bias, as the diagnosis of RTI was not based on microbiological exams; we judged the remaining open-label studies as at low risk of detection bias, as a standardised set of diagnostic criteria, including results of microbiological exams, were used. Topical plus systemic antibiotic prophylaxis reduces overall mortality compared with placebo or no treatment (risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 0.96; 18 studies; 5290 participants; high-certainty evidence). Based on an illustrative risk of 303 deaths in 1000 people this equates to 48 (95% CI 15 to 79) fewer deaths with topical plus systemic antibiotic prophylaxis. Topical plus systemic antibiotic prophylaxis probably reduces RTIs (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.53; 17 studies; 2951 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on an illustrative risk of 417 RTIs in 1000 people this equates to 238 (95% CI 196 to 271) fewer RTIs with topical plus systemic antibiotic prophylaxis. Topical antibiotic prophylaxis probably reduces overall mortality compared with no topical antibiotic prophylaxis (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.05; 22 studies, 4213 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on an illustrative risk of 290 deaths in 1000 people this equates to 19 (95% CI 37 fewer to 15 more) fewer deaths with topical antibiotic prophylaxis. Topical antibiotic prophylaxis may reduce RTIs (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.74; 19 studies, 2698 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on an illustrative risk of 318 RTIs in 1000 people this equates to 137 (95% CI 83 to 178) fewer RTIs with topical antibiotic prophylaxis. Sixteen studies reported adverse events and dropouts due to adverse events, which were poorly reported with sparse data. The certainty of the evidence ranged from low to very low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Treatments based on topical prophylaxis probably reduce respiratory infections, but not mortality, in adult patients receiving mechanical ventilation for at least 48 hours, whereas a combination of topical and systemic prophylactic antibiotics reduces both overall mortality and RTIs. However, we cannot rule out that the systemic component of the combined treatment provides a relevant contribution in the observed reduction of mortality. No conclusion can be drawn about adverse events as they were poorly reported with sparse data.

Methodological Issues in Rehabilitation Research: A Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVE: To identify, synthesize, and categorize the methodological issues faced by the rehabilitation field. DATA SOURCES: A scoping review was conducted using studies identified in MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, and Google Scholar up to August 2018. STUDY SELECTION: We included all type of publications describing methodological issues in rehabilitation research where rehabilitation is described as a multimodal process. The methodological issues have been categorized and classified. DATA EXTRACTION: The synthesis included qualitative and quantitative analysis. To focus the attention on rehabilitation, we post hoc divided in "specific issues" (highly related to, even if not exclusive of, rehabilitation research) and "generic issues" (common in biomedical research). DATA SYNTHESIS: Seventy-one publications were included: 68% were narrative reviews, 15% systematic reviews, 7% editorials, 4% meta-epidemiologic studies, and 5% others. Specific methodological issues include the following: problematic application of randomized controlled trials (32%), absent definition of core outcome sets (28%), poor interventions description (22%), weak methodological (conducting) and reporting quality (21%), scarce clinical practice applicability (14%), lack of blinding assessor (10%), inadequate randomization methods or inadequate allocation concealment (8%), and inadequate participants description and recruitment (8%). "Generic" issues included the following: data and statistical description (31%), authors' methodological training (7%), peer review process (6%, n=4), funding declaration (6%), ethical statement (3%), protocol registration (3%), and conflict of interest declaration (1%). CONCLUSIONS: Methodological and reporting issues might influence the quality of the evidence produced in rehabilitation research. The next steps to move forward in the field of rehabilitation could be to evaluate the influence of all these issues on the validity of trial results through meta-epidemiologic studies and to develop specific checklists to provide guidance to authors to improve the reporting and conduct of trials in this field.

Equity, acceptability and feasibility of using polyunsaturated fatty acids in children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorder: a rapid systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Some recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessed the efficacy and safety of polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) for the treatment of autism spectrum disorder (ASD). To optimally inform the Italian guideline for the management of ASD in children and adolescents, we reviewed the impact on equity, acceptability and feasibility for developing a pilot recommendation for PUFAs. METHODS: We performed a rapid systematic review of observational and experimental studies on PUFAs for children and adolescents with ASD, extracting data on resources required, equity, acceptability, and feasibility of PUFAs. We followed the framework provided by the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) methodology, and we assessed risk of bias and methodological quality of included studies. Results were synthesized both narratively and quantitatively to address clinically relevant questions on equity, acceptability, and feasibility. RESULTS: We found 14 papers related to equity. PUFAs did not seem to impact equity importantly. We did not find variation in effectiveness across subgroups and in a base case scenario, the cost of a 12 weeks cycle of therapy with 1.155 g/day of PUFAs was €65.51 euro. The acceptability of PUFAs was evaluated in 17 studies, 9 of which were RCTs. PUFAs were widely used among children and adolescents with ASD (18 to 51%), and 50% of parents considered nutritional supplementation as useful. Difficulty in swallowing capsules and bad taste were identified as possible causes of poor compliance, but treatment adherence, when measured in included RCTs, was judged to be good to excellent. Discontinuation due to any cause for PUFAs could not differ from placebo (low certainty of evidence). The feasibility of using PUFAs was assessed in 12 studies. PUFAs were probably sustainable, and no particular critical issue emerged from the feasibility assessment. However, the evidence appeared scarce and indirect. CONCLUSIONS: We found the administration of PUFAs in children and adolescents with ASD to be potentially equitable, acceptable and feasible. These results are limited by the limited number and quality of retrieved documents, and need to be viewed in light of efficacy and safety data to formulate clinical recommendations.

Impact of polyunsaturated fatty acids on patient-important outcomes in children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorder: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) claimed PUFAs to be effective for autism spectrum disorder (ASD) but international guidelines have not considered yet this body of evidence. Our aim was to assess the effectiveness of PUFAs in children and adolescents with ASD, for the Italian national guidelines on the management of ASD in children and adolescents. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs comparing PUFAs versus placebo or a healthy diet for the treatment of ASD in children and adolescents. The outcomes considered were deemed by the guideline panel to be highly relevant to children and adolescents with ASD and to their caregivers. The outcomes included hyperactivity, quality of sleep, self-harm, aggression, irritability, anxiety, attention, adaptive functioning, social interaction, restricted and repetitive interests and behavior, communication, hyperactivity and disruptive behaviors coexistent with core symptoms. The risk of bias of the included studies was assessed with the Cochrane tool, and the rating of the confidence in the effect estimates according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: We included 9 studies with 405 participants. The strength of evidence ranged from low to very low. Six studies included preschoolers and school-age children, three studies included both children and adolescents. The majority of participants were males (83.8%), with a mean age of 6.7 years. PUFAs were superior compared to placebo in reducing anxiety in individuals with ASD (SMD -1.01, 95% CI - 1.86 to - 0.17; very low certainty of evidence). Moreover, PUFAs worsened quality of sleep compared to a healthy diet (SMD 1.11, 95% CI 0.21 to 2.00; very low certainty of evidence). PUFAs were not better than placebo in reducing aggression, hyperactivity, adaptive functioning, irritability, restricted and repetitive interests and behaviors and communication. Effects on some critical outcomes such as sleep, self-harm and disruptive behavior are currently unknown. The main limitations were the small number of participants included in the RCTs and the dosage which varied greatly (from 200 mg/day to 1540 mg/day), making it difficult to address causal inference. CONCLUSIONS: PUFAs did not show evidence of effect in children and adolescents with ASD and the certainty of evidence as measured with the GRADE was low to very low. Further research is needed on this topic because the available evidence is inconclusive.

Acceptability, equity, and feasibility of using antipsychotics in children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorder: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether the administration of antipsychotics to children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) is acceptable, equitable, and feasible. METHODS: We performed a systematic review to support a multidisciplinary panel in formulating a recommendation on antipsychotics, for the development of the Italian national guidelines for the management of ASD. A comprehensive search strategy was performed to find data related to intervention acceptability, health equity, and implementation feasibility. We used quantitative data from randomized controlled trials to perform a meta-analysis assessing the acceptability and tolerability of antipsychotics, and we estimated the certainty of the effect according to the GRADE approach. We extracted data from systematic reviews, primary studies, and grey literature, and we assessed the risk of bias and methodological quality of the published studies. RESULTS: Antipsychotics were acceptable (dropouts due to any cause: RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.48-0.78, moderate certainty of evidence) and well tolerated (dropouts due to adverse events: RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.55-1.79, low certainty of evidence) by children and adolescents with ASD. Parents and clinicians did not raise significant issues concerning acceptability. We did not find studies reporting evidence of reduced equity for antipsychotics in disadvantaged subgroups of children and adolescents with ASD. Workloads, cost barriers, and inadequate monitoring of metabolic adverse events were indirect evidence of concerns for feasibility. CONCLUSION: Antipsychotics in children and adolescents with ASD were likely acceptable and possibly feasible. We did not find evidence of concern for equity.

Maintenance agonist treatments for opiate-dependent pregnant women.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of opiate use among pregnant women can range from 1% to 2% to as high as 21%. Just in the United States alone, among pregnant women with hospital delivery, a fourfold increase in opioid use is reported from 1999 to 2014 (Haight 2018). Heroin crosses the placenta, and pregnant, opiate-dependent women experience a six-fold increase in maternal obstetric complications such as low birth weight, toxaemia, third trimester bleeding, malpresentation, puerperal morbidity, fetal distress and meconium aspiration. Neonatal complications include narcotic withdrawal, postnatal growth deficiency, microcephaly, neuro-behavioural problems, increased neonatal mortality and a 74-fold increase in sudden infant death syndrome. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review first published in 2008 and last updated in 2013. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of any maintenance treatment alone or in combination with a psychosocial intervention compared to no intervention, other pharmacological intervention or psychosocial interventions alone for child health status, neonatal mortality, retaining pregnant women in treatment, and reducing the use of substances. SEARCH METHODS: We updated our searches of the following databases to February 2020: the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Web of Science. We also searched two trials registers and checked the reference lists of included studies for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials which assessed the efficacy of any pharmacological maintenance treatment for opiate-dependent pregnant women. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We found four trials with 271 pregnant women. Three compared methadone with buprenorphine and one methadone with oral slow-release morphine. Three out of four studies had adequate allocation concealment and were double-blind. The major flaw in the included studies was attrition bias: three out of four had a high dropout rate (30% to 40%), and this was unbalanced between groups. Methadone versus buprenorphine: There was probably no evidence of a difference in the dropout rate from treatment (risk ratio (RR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37 to 1.20, three studies, 223 participants, moderate-quality evidence). There may be no evidence of a difference in the use of primary substances between methadone and buprenorphine (RR 1.81, 95% CI 0.70 to 4.68, two studies, 151 participants, low-quality evidence). Birth weight may be higher in the buprenorphine group in the two trials that reported data MD;-530.00 g, 95%CI -662.78 to -397.22 (one study, 19 particpants) and MD: -215.00 g, 95%CI -238.93 to -191.07 (one study, 131 participants) although the results could not be pooled due to very high heterogeneity (very low-quality of evidence). The third study reported that there was no evidence of a difference. We found there may be no evidence of a difference in the APGAR score (MD: 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.03, two studies,163 participants, low-quality evidence). Many measures were used in the studies to assess neonatal abstinence syndrome. The number of newborns treated for neonatal abstinence syndrome, which is the most critical outcome, may not differ between groups (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.87 to1.63, three studies, 166 participants, low-quality evidence). Only one study which compared methadone with buprenorphine reported side effects. We found there may be no evidence of a difference in the number of mothers with serious adverse events (AEs) (RR 1.69, 95% CI 0.75 to 3.83, 175 participants, low-quality evidence) and we found there may be no difference in the numbers of newborns with serious AEs (RR 4.77, 95% CI 0.59, 38.49,131 participants, low-quality evidence). Methadone versus slow-release morphine: There were no dropouts in either treatment group. Oral slow-release morphine may be superior to methadone for abstinence from heroin use during pregnancy (RR 2.40, 95% CI 1.00 to 5.77, one study, 48 participants, low-quality evidence). In the comparison between methadone and slow-release morphine, no side effects were reported for the mother. In contrast, one child in the methadone group had central apnoea, and one child in the morphine group had obstructive apnoea (low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Methadone and buprenorphine may be similar in efficacy and safety for the treatment of opioid-dependent pregnant women and their babies. There is not enough evidence to make conclusions for the comparison between methadone and slow-release morphine. Overall, the body of evidence is too small to make firm conclusions about the equivalence of the treatments compared. There is still a need for randomised controlled trials of adequate sample size comparing different maintenance treatments.

Performance measures for small-bowel endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative.

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) together with the United European Gastroenterology (UEG) recently developed a short list of performance measures for small-bowel endoscopy (i. e. small-bowel capsule endoscopy and device-assisted enteroscopy) with the final goal of providing endoscopy services across Europe with a tool for quality improvement. Six key performance measures for both small-bowel capsule endoscopy and for device-assisted enteroscopy were selected for inclusion, with the intention being that practice at both a service and endoscopist level should be evaluated against them. Other performance measures were considered to be less relevant, based on an assessment of their overall importance, scientific acceptability, and feasibility. Unlike lower and upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, where performance measures had already been identified, this is the first time that small-bowel endoscopy quality measures have been proposed.

Consensus on molecular imaging and theranostics in prostate cancer.

Rapid developments in imaging and treatment with radiopharmaceuticals targeting prostate cancer pose issues for the development of guidelines for their appropriate use. To tackle this problem, international experts representing medical oncologists, urologists, radiation oncologists, radiologists, and nuclear medicine specialists convened at the European Association of Nuclear Medicine Focus 1 meeting to deliver a balanced perspective on available data and clinical experience of imaging in prostate cancer, which had been supported by a systematic review of the literature and a modified Delphi process. Relevant conclusions included the following: diphosphonate bone scanning and contrast-enhanced CT are mentioned but rarely recommended for most patients in clinical guidelines; MRI (whole-body or multiparametric) and prostate cancer-targeted PET are frequently suggested, but the specific contexts in which these methods affect practice are not established; sodium fluoride-18 for PET-CT bone scanning is not widely advocated, whereas gallium-68 or fluorine-18 prostate-specific membrane antigen gain acceptance; and, palliative treatment with bone targeting radiopharmaceuticals (rhenium-186, samarium-153, or strontium-89) have largely been replaced by radium-223 on the basis of the survival benefit that was reported in prospective trials, and by other systemic therapies with proven survival benefits. Although the advances in MRI and PET-CT have improved the accuracy of imaging, the effects of these new methods on clinical outcomes remains to be established. Improved communication between imagers and clinicians and more multidisciplinary input in clinical trial design are essential to encourage imaging insights into clinical decision making.